ISIS & It's Religious Civil War

And who exactly are we "policing"? The US is now openly arming, training and funding Al-CIAeda/ISIS, the same guys we're supposed to go fight...

We know who our enemies are. Its not about humanitarian efforts. Its about America's security. Sure we armed extremist groups, but we did so to
aid in the destabilization of a bigger threat- an organized extremist group- Syria. A bunch of Taliban with guns doesn't affect America, but a bunch
of Taliban with guns, planes, and ships could. The American commanders in the war know what they're doing, and they are doing it well, and I am
thankful. Encouraging internal violence in unified nations that want to destroy America is a good thing for America.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: DarknStormy I'm a hard headed lover. What part of my post brings my faith into question for you? It is quiet clear
that islam views everyone as infedals including aethist.

That's not true.. Islam only see's people without any faith as infidels and it doesn't matter what religion you come form. Now when speaking about
terrorists, then you are likely correct. They even kill innocent Muslims for Christ sake.

I seriously agree with you. Totally. It's a religious war so let the Shias the Sunnis and the ISIS blast the hell out of each other to figure out
which of them really is the 'religion of peace'. No one should be involved. Maybe someday they'll figure out that real peace over there means
that they should dump their religion. But that's on them to learn ...

If I were a mod ... you'd have applause for this thread. You nailed it.

And who exactly are we "policing"? The US is now openly arming, training and funding Al-CIAeda/ISIS, the same guys we're supposed to go fight...

We know who our enemies are. Its not about humanitarian efforts. Its about America's security. Sure we armed extremist groups, but we did so to
aid in the destabilization of a bigger threat- an organized extremist group- Syria. A bunch of Taliban with guns doesn't affect America, but a bunch
of Taliban with guns, planes, and ships could. The American commanders in the war know what they're doing, and they are doing it well, and I am
thankful. Encouraging internal violence in unified nations that want to destroy America is a good thing for America.

I disagree completely.

The nations of Syria, Iraq, and Libya were not a threat to the U.S. Sure, they were a breeding ground for terrorists but by arming and funding the
"rebel" groups in those countries, we've created an ideal situation for those who want to kill us. The "terrorists" and the "rebel factions"
are two sides of the same coin.

A small group of ISIS troops crossing the border into the U.S. is a very real threat. You say that "a bunch of Taliban with guns, planes, and
ships..." could affect America. What do you think has now happened in Iraq and soon to happen in Syria? ISIS has seized control of military
equipment and the Taliban are a troop of boy scouts compared to these guys.

I don't doubt that the American military commanders, left to their own devices, could control the situation. Unfortunately, they're not calling the
shots. There's no money in American security. American fear is highly profitable.

The delicate balance that Iraq had come to was shattered by the US invasion.

That’s a fact, and those that initiated the invasion were warned by sober intelligent people including even Russia what an invasion would tear
apart.
THE INVASION OF Iraq was probably the most horrendous act of the 21st century, a virtual holocaust.

So America IS TO BLAME for the condition of Iraq...George Bush/Cheney inc...
All historians of any repute will record that fact

I completely agree with this, however, the notion that America is to blame for these radical groups doing what they have ALWAYS done is a ludicris
one............

They have done this for centuries.........this idea of a caliphate is nothing new either........

The problem is that America is unable to finish what it starts. You can't just invade, say "mission accomplished" and then go home again, expecting
everything to work out all dandy. You need to stay there for many decades at least if you want to build a stable society. Like Britain used to do when
they still had some power.

But the US is unable/unwilling to commit to full scale imperialism. For many reasons, it goes against this ideology of "freedom", it's too
expensive etc. Also, China and Russia wouldn't like it at all.

I love how people try to justify your countries innocence when the truth is Iraq was a stable country before US intervention

I love how people try to blame the west for a violent ideology that has been around since before the US was a country....

The US may have funded, and left power vaccums in the middle east, but the middle east has always been a hot bed of religious infighting and
turmoil........

Islam has been a threat to its own people because of its extremist for much longer then the US has been around......

To deny that is absolute willful ignorance...........

This Sunni/Shia conflict is just the latest in a long line of infighting from Islam........

You can try and defend the Sunni perspective all you want but im not buying it, ive watched you do it on other threads.......

Been there done that......you cant pull the wool over my eyes

Would this be the same America whose violent ideology slaughtered millions of Native Americans and based a national textile economy on African
Slavery?

Would this be the same America whose violent ideology slaughtered millions of Native Americans and based a national textile economy on African
Slavery?

If you really want to go there we can point out that the ME and Africa were involved in slavery long before America was even a thought.........

2. I never said America was perfect........

3. your deflecting...........your statement has NOTHING to do with the fact that TODAY, over 500 thousand islamic extremists are out there killing ,
raping and wreaking havoc on society.........

Thats NOT 1000 years ago, thats NOT during the crusades, thats NOT during some memory past , thats TODAY!

Before the Iraq campaign began there were an estimated 20,000 Al-Qaeda fighters in the entire world (according to the CIA). It was America's
involvement in Iraq that created a context for increased Jihadism from every corner of the Middle East. And let's not forget that the CIA and FBI went
public early in Pres Bush's push for war, to say that there were no WMDs in Iraq and therefore no reason to invade. None were found, except a few
rusty, leaking barrels of chemical compounds from the 70s. There was no threat from Hussein in that sense, except that he had undeveloped petroleum
resources.

It was also succinctly pointed out by western intelligence sources that Pres. Hussein had spies at every level of society and that terrorism in any
form was not permitted to infiltrate Iraqi society. Hussein's spy network was so well entrenched that even western spy networks were discovered and
wiped out before they could gain the advantage.

People who don't do their homework on historical contexts from good sources are the ones in denial - and they are the ones bringing down our nation
with ideologically tainted views of democracy and security that create extreme harm. I mean, this should be quite obvious to any reasonably
intelligent person. Who do you think is paying for this disaster? You are! The price of oil has increase from $10.00 a barrel to [ $160.00 a barrel ]
since the first Gulf war. Have you done the math to see the inflated costs of living and just how your quality of life and that of your children has
declined since 1990? Daaaa!

Keep up the good work. The terrorists' objectives, which utilizes our own tainted ideology to destroy us - hang on every word that proceeds from your
mouth.

edit on 28-6-2014 by Gianfar because: grammar, arraingement, and context.

I love how people try to justify your countries innocence when the truth is Iraq was a stable country before US intervention

I love how people try to blame the west for a violent ideology that has been around since before the US was a country....

The US may have funded, and left power vaccums in the middle east, but the middle east has always been a hot bed of religious infighting and
turmoil........

Islam has been a threat to its own people because of its extremist for much longer then the US has been around......

To deny that is absolute willful ignorance...........

This Sunni/Shia conflict is just the latest in a long line of infighting from Islam........

You can try and defend the Sunni perspective all you want but im not buying it, ive watched you do it on other threads.......

Been there done that......you cant pull the wool over my eyes

Would this be the same America whose violent ideology slaughtered millions of Native Americans and based a national textile economy on African
Slavery?

Yes, let's quite ignore that Middle Eastern muslims also bought just as many Africans as the Europeans, marched mostly women and children across the
African Sahara where many of them died which was as brutal, if not more so, than the slave ships, to be sold into servitude in the Middle East ...
let's just ignore that. Let's also ignore that when the British Empire decided to end slavery, they were one of the most resistant people's to
ending the slave trade.

American slavery was only notable because of the war to end it, but they were hardly the only nation to engage in it. Pretty much every nation in the
world is guilty of slavery to some degree, and African and Middle Eastern nations continue to engage in it today.

As for destroying native tribes and peoples, that also is hardly unique to America.

Muslims do have Christ in their religion. However, they believe that he was just another prophet, not the risen Son of God. It's one of the main
differences. They believe that Allah is the One God, and that God would never allow himself to have a son or be so divided which would interfere with
Him being a One God, making him polytheistic which is blasphemous for them (I think. I may be getting that wrong. If I am, I'm sure one of the
resident Muslims on the thread will be quick to correct).

The problem is that America is unable to finish what it starts. You can't just invade, say "mission accomplished" and then go home again, expecting
everything to work out all dandy. You need to stay there for many decades at least if you want to build a stable society. Like Britain used to do when
they still had some power.

But the US is unable/unwilling to commit to full scale imperialism. For many reasons, it goes against this ideology of "freedom", it's too
expensive etc. Also, China and Russia wouldn't like it at all.

So, the people of Iraq remain @!%#ed.

This.

It ties in with what Cuervo said earlier.

If we were going to do what we did, we had to fully commit and not do it half-@ssed. We both needed to be militarily harsh and we needed to commit to
being occupiers (yes, I used the word because it's apt) for a generation at least. In order to have the time to make sure that younger generation
grew up with a new way of thinking and belief (not a new religion just new values), we were going to have to commit to running the place for decades.
I'm thinking about how we treated Japan after WWII.

It's still Japan and the culture is still Japanese, but the new generations took on aspects of American values that made them less prone behave as
they did in the decades leading up to WWII. In fact, they translated those warrior code instincts to business and became a very high-powered trade
nation as a result with an extremely modern economy and unparalleled technical prowess.

What might the mix of cultures in the Middle East give birth to if only it had a chance?

Just because America's leaders made some gun-ho mistake more than a decade ago, does not mean we need to indefinitely support those actions. Take
responsibility for what you have done, realize that the MEDDLING is what caused these problems in the first place.

Then stop meddling. The only Americans who die of "terrorism" are the ones who aren't where they are supposed to be.

I would disagree. All the people in the Towers were where they were supposed to be, same with the Pentagon. What about all the people in the Murrah
building (no, it wasn't Muslim terrorism, but it was still terrorism)? No one should have been at the Boston Marathon that day?

The only Americans who die of "terrorism" are the ones who aren't where they are supposed to be.

~Tenth

I guess the soldiers at Ft. Hood weren't where they were supposed to be? Oh, yes, that's not terrorism; it's "workplace violence."

Then, you say you have a better chance of being bitten by Suarez or struck by lightning. That doesn't change the fact that people have died and that
you said they were "in the wrong place."

Whether they have a good chance of dying or not, I take main issue with the implication that only way you can die in terrorism is if you are in the
wrong place. That is what I find offensive. It's like saying that the people in Nairobi shouldn't have been out shopping or that those girls kidnapped
by Boko Haram shouldn't have dared to go to school.

It's a FACT that you only die of terrorism if you are in somebody else's country as an American. Primarily the Middle east and some parts of
Southern Asia.

You can take offense all you want to the truth, but it doesn't change the fact that Americans died because of American Internvention in those
countries. If they had stopped playing " Set up the Dictator" 50 years ago, I don't think we would have these problems.

Well, the civil conflict, based on religion, that has NOTHING TO DO with America would certainly still be on going.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.